People v. Howell CA3

Filed 7/11/25 P. v. Howell CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Plumas) ----

THE PEOPLE, C101983

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F22-00042)

v.

SAMUEL OLIVER HOWELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Samuel Oliver Howell was convicted of felony battery with serious bodily injury and misdemeanor battery. On the date of a victim restitution hearing, Howell and his attorney were absent. The trial court proceeded with the hearing and, after hearing the prosecution’s evidence, ordered restitution in the amount of $7,199.92. On appeal, Howell asserts the trial court violated his constitutional and statutory rights by conducting the victim restitution hearing while he and his attorney were absent. The People concede the error. We accept the People’s concession. We will vacate the restitution order and remand the matter for a new restitution hearing.

1

PROCEDURAL HISTORY The facts of this case are not relevant to our determination on appeal. The following is a brief recitation of the relevant procedural history. On January 12, 2024, following a jury trial, Howell was convicted of one count of felony battery with serious bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (d)) and one count of misdemeanor battery (Pen. Code, § 242). He was sentenced to two years for the felony battery conviction and six months for the misdemeanor battery conviction, with the sentences running concurrently. At sentencing, defense counsel requested a hearing on victim restitution. The hearing was set for March 8, 2024, a date selected to accommodate defense counsel’s schedule. On March 8, 2024, the prosecutor and the prosecution’s witness—the victim’s wife—were present for the hearing, but Howell and his attorney were absent. The trial judge and the prosecutor briefly discussed defense counsel’s absence. The prosecutor indicated he had not heard from defense counsel and did not know why counsel was not present. Neither the judge nor the prosecutor mentioned Howell’s absence, and there was no mention of a waiver of appearance. The trial court proceeded with the restitution hearing. The prosecution presented witness testimony and evidence of medical bills. The witness claimed $7,199.92 in costs on behalf of the victim for the treatment of injuries caused by Howell. The trial court ordered Howell to pay restitution to the victim in the amount of $7,199.92. Howell appeals from that order. DISCUSSION On appeal, Howell asserts the restitution order must be vacated because (1) his statutory and constitutional rights were violated, resulting in prejudice, when the trial court conducted the restitution hearing without Howell or his attorney present, and (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to appear at the hearing.